Pink Sheet is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By


Hatch-Waxman “Safe Harbor” Could Face Two-Front Battle In Supreme Court

This article was originally published in The Pink Sheet Daily

Executive Summary

Momenta plans to seek high court review of the scope of the “Bolar Amendment” in an enoxaparin patent dispute; activity in a second “safe harbor” case at the Supreme Court is expected to resume now that the appeals court proceedings in Momenta v. Amphastar have concluded.

You may also be interested in...

Hatch-Waxman “Safe Harbor” Ruling Threatens Compound Patents, Momenta Says

Enoxaparin marketing partners Momenta and Sandoz seek rehearing en banc of an appellate panel’s decision that broadly interpreted the scope of the so-called “Bolar Amendment.” Amphastar and Watson, whom the panel said were protected from patent infringement claims, oppose the request.

Manufacturing Patents In Peril After Court Extends Hatch-Waxman “Safe Harbor”

In a dispute related to Amphastar/Watson’s generic enoxaparin, a Federal Circuit panel takes an expansive view of the “Bolar Amendment” and finds that certain post-approval activities are protected from infringement claims, including quality control batch testing of commercial product. The decision draws a blistering dissent from the appeals court’s chief judge, who warns the ruling will “render manufacturing method patents worthless.”

Hatch-Waxman Safe Harbor Could Get Supreme Court Review

High court invites the Solicitor General to submit a brief after GlaxoSmithKline seeks review of a Federal Circuit finding that the safe harbor provision barring infringement claims only pertains to actions to obtain generic approvals; the ruling held GSK’s participation in a study on immunization schedules infringed Classen patents.

Related Content


Related Companies




Ask The Analyst

Please Note: You can also Click below Link for Ask the Analyst
Ask The Analyst

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts